Watch YouTube VideoThis article is intended to show how people will conform to peer pressure against their own convictions and in what conditions. It is relevant to the influence exerted in the church community among its members. There is significant pressure in the church to prevent the expression of doubt or critical questioning of the properties of the religion. People would rather conform than go against the group. Since people are evolutionarily tuned to be social animals, the perceived benefit of belonging to the group should outweigh the benefit of dissension. I am grateful to Matthew, one of our readers, for submitting this and his kind sentiment. Click on the Link above to show a short video documentary on them. Click on the Link below to read a short summary from Wikipedia.

From WikipediaSolomon Asch "became famous in the 1950s, following experiments which showed that social pressure can make a person say something that is obviously incorrect.

The way he did this was through an experiment in which participants were shown a card with a line on it, followed by another card with 3 lines on it labeled a, b, and c. The participants were then asked to say which line matched the line on the first card. At first, the subject would feel very at ease in the experiment, as he and the other participants gave the obvious answer. Shortly after, the "participants" in front of the subject would start all giving the same wrong answer. Solomon Asch thought that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong, but the results showed that an alarming number of participants gave the wrong answer. See Asch Conformity Experiments"

39
comments:

"It is also worth noting that the new atheists, as mentioned, fail to provide any solid argument in support of the non-existence of God. This is not because of some lack of intellectual sophistication on their part, but rather because, as most philosophers will readily admit, non-existence is something that can never be proven. Christopher Hitchens, generally considered the most knowledgeable and entertaining of the five authors mentioned, argues that God does not exist because "all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule".

In making this claim, Hitchens makes two mistakes. First, he fails to account for the fact that a large proportion of scientists (as many as 50 per cent according to the late Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory) do believe in God. Second, and more importantly, he is totally oblivious to the fact that, in the order of natural (ie, non-revealed) knowledge, the idea that God exists can only make sense as a philosophical answer to a metaphysical question. Throughout history, the concept of God has always appeared as one having to do with the why of a certain existence. And the question as to why something exists is not a scientific one because whatever its answer might be, it does not lend itself to empirical verification, ie, it is not falsifiable through experimentation. Anyone wondering whether God exists is well aware that he is not raising a scientific question because all scientific enquiries are geared to what a given thing actually is, rather than to why it exists. In short, religion has nothing to do with what things are – that is the realm of natural science -, but rather with why they happen to be at all.

But there is an even deeper flaw in the thinking of the new atheists. All assume that in the debate on God, the basic distinction is that between believers and unbelievers. Yet, as Blaise Pascal, a 17th Century mathematician, scientist and inventor of the first working computer, notes in his Pensées, the true absolute distinction is between "seeking" and "unseeking" unbelievers, between unhappy atheists who seek and eventually become believers, and happy atheists who simply don’t care. Pascal reminds us that God judges atheists, not by the supernatural standard of faith, but rather by the natural standard of reason. " Atheism becomes fashionable

First, he fails to account for the fact that a large proportion of scientists (as many as 50 per cent according to the late Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory) do believe in God.

But they usually do not try to reconcile their faith with science, but rather relegate religion to explain those phenomena that they feel are inexplicable.

Second, and more importantly, he is totally oblivious to the fact that, in the order of natural (ie, non-revealed) knowledge, the idea that God exists can only make sense as a philosophical answer to a metaphysical question. Throughout history, the concept of God has always appeared as one having to do with the why of a certain existence.

False. The earliest roots of religion had to do exclusively with gods that DID things. The idea that gods exist exclusively in some metaphysical realm is a relatively new idea, and one to which you as a Young Earth Creationist do not subscribe. Don't lie.

And the question as to why something exists is not a scientific one because whatever its answer might be, it does not lend itself to empirical verification, ie, it is not falsifiable through experimentation.

Also false. The question of why is one of the primary concerns of psychology, where they DO use empiricism and often sophisticated statistics to try to answer these questions of "why".

The question of "why" in regards to natural phenomena (Why do we exist) are unfounded questions, as they presume a rational thinker behind the event that is not in evidence.

In short, religion has nothing to do with what things are – that is the realm of natural science -, but rather with why they happen to be at all.

So you admit that the Earth is billions of years old, and that people and apes evolved from the same common ancestor, which is a "what" and a "how" question that science has definitively approached? This is a change from your previous stances, so I just want to make sure...

Yet, as Blaise Pascal, a 17th Century mathematician, scientist and inventor of the first working computer, notes in his Pensées, the true absolute distinction is between "seeking" and "unseeking" unbelievers, between unhappy atheists who seek and eventually become believers, and happy atheists who simply don’t care. Pascal reminds us that God judges atheists, not by the supernatural standard of faith, but rather by the natural standard of reason."

First of all, Pascal built a calculator, not a computer, and he built the second working one, the first being built by Wilhelm Schickard.

And secondly, you're telling me that a 17th century Frenchman was Catholic!?! Imagine my surprise... Pascal worked from the same flawed logic as you do, assuming from the beginning that there is something to be sought.

Until you have reliable evidence that is proportional to the unusualness of the claim you are making, the only rational response is disbelief.

>>>...Since people are evolutionarily tuned to be social animals, the perceived benefit of belonging to the group should outweigh the benefit of dissension...

As with most observations, there is more than one way of looking at things. Even the results of scientific experimentation can lead one to infer different things.

For example, if evolution *dictates* that humans will act in conformity to their group then every act of a person standing up to his/her group invalidates evolutionary theory. That is, evolutionary theory makes a prediction that is then falsified.

What I am calling attention to here is the danger of a "bloated inference" (I think that that was the term used in the lecture that was posted here the other day). In logical fallacy terms, it is called "jumping to conclusions" or more properly, "hasty generalization."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/hastygen.html

It seesm appropriate at this point to mention Sir Francis Bacon, author of Novum Organum, who shows us how important it is to critically evaluate our ideas to see if they can withstand critical assessment. The road to Hell is paved with plausable ideas.

Here's the obvious question... if evolution dictates one's conformity with the pack, then we should see this exhibiting equally across the atheist-fundamentalist spectrum.

I think that the influence of this pressure on our conformity to a group is all that can be shown from the evidence. It seems very clear that this does influence all of us at times, and in situations, but it is clear that many people are quite willing to go head to head, myself included.

So my points are these:

* beware hasty generalization* all people that are part of a group should recognize the often subtle ways in which they are being influenced by the social forces in that group and take steps to avoid being swayed from our thinking by it

These comments are not meant to invalidate the observations made in this blog, but rather to temper them with a dash of salt.

For example, if evolution *dictates* that humans will act in conformity to their group then every act of a person standing up to his/her group invalidates evolutionary theory. That is, evolutionary theory makes a prediction that is then falsified.

If you know anything about evolution, you should know that your argument is a false characiture. Evolutionary dictates are probabilistic in nature; therefore, no one case of a person standing up to his/her group would invalidate the theory. For example, no one denies that Infantile Tay-Sachs disease is lethal to children before they reach reproductive age. If your version was correct, then evolution would predict that Infantile Tay-Sachs disease would never occur.

Of course, this isn't how it works. Evolution decrees that the genes predisposing one for Tay-Sachs disease will be present at a frequency considerably lower than one would expect by random distribution. Similarly, if there is a genetic component for conformity (and there almost certainly is), then evolution dictates that the fitness that this genetic component confers will be reflected in a change in its frequency in a gene pool.

Here's the obvious question... if evolution dictates one's conformity with the pack, then we should see this exhibiting equally across the atheist-fundamentalist spectrum.

First of all, this is untrue; evolutionary dictates when dealing with heterogeneous social groups are never this straightforward. People who are genetically predispositioned to defy authority, either via heredity or mutation, would be more likely to seek out social structures where this behavior is rewarded (or at least not penalized as harshly). Since there are multiple social structures to choose from, and modern Western humans can move between them fairly fluidly, the reproductive bias will be muted if not completely annulled. Similarly, how does one conform to a social group whose binding component is non-conformity (we don't call ourselves "freethinkers" for the bumper stickers!)

>>>...Similarly, how does one conform to a social group whose binding component is non-conformity (we don't call ourselves "freethinkers" for the bumper stickers!)

My points were meant to lend a bit of balance to the equation which I saw as possibly leading to possible extremes:

* that only religion can lend peer pressure and atheists are therefore exempt

* that evolution would prefer conformity, and therefore, our species would be conformists

You *seem* to be saying in response that **individuals** are the ones who are either disposed or not to conformity, and that this is not necessarily expressed their whole lives, and further, that when it expresses, people will join the appropriate group.

Whatever.

But your last point concerns me because you don't think that there exists pressure to conform one's thinking among those who bear the bumper sticker "Free Thinkers." Apparently, in your mind, those genetically disposed (with genes expressing) to conformity become religious, those genetically disposed (and genes expressing) to rebellion to authority become "Free Thinkers." We must conclude that most of the individuals on this list had "early expressing conformity genes" and "late expressing buck the system genes."

Personally, I find this all to be speculative to the point silliness, in the absence of isolating either gene.

What the evidence shows is that peer pressure often - even alarmingly often - influences people's decisions and we all have to be alert to it. Even here on this blog.

nice attempt to poison the well, but it is hardly relevant to the article.I'd like to see your stats on belief among scientists because in the Journal Nature the reported adherence to faith was a lot smaller.here is the link to the stats you are quoting from stephenjaygoulgould.org.

and christopher hitchens doesn't speak for me. I speak for myself and If I want them to speak for me, I'll steal their arguments. ;-)

I am looking for the evidence of god, have been for a long time, I am inviting the christian to accept the burden of proof and show me why I should believe in a god. I'm still waiting.

When I get sick I go to the doctor. Science has provided medicine for me to make my life better. That not only makes me feel good, it demonstrably changes my state for the better. There is no subjectivity involved.

get busy. Get those christian scientists to find the evidence of god working in peoples lives.

And please use some living scientists that have the luxury of more recent information than the 17th century. I will even if you don't.

Hi bill,you seem to be ignoring a qualifier in you 'bloated inference' charge.

Can an inference be said to be 'bloated' if it can be used reliably to predict outcomes?

This is where the rubber meets the road in science. When a theory makes reliable predictions about outcomes it becomes a general principle. Not a 'bloated inference' or a hasty generalization. You should spend more time reading the content of www.fallacyfiles.org. It would do you some good. If you search there, you will even find my contributions.

But your last point concerns me because you don't think that there exists pressure to conform one's thinking among those who bear the bumper sticker "Free Thinkers." Apparently, in your mind, those genetically disposed (with genes expressing) to conformity become religious, those genetically disposed (and genes expressing) to rebellion to authority become "Free Thinkers." We must conclude that most of the individuals on this list had "early expressing conformity genes" and "late expressing buck the system genes."

No, we could also have been born into a certain social group for which we were genetically unfit, and then utilized our social mobility to leave that group after discovering that we were unfit. Genes only work in concert with environment, so you must always include the environment in any discussion of the action of genetic elements.

Personally, I find this all to be speculative to the point silliness, in the absence of isolating either gene.

This notion of there being a "conformity" gene is ridiculously simplistic. Conformity is likely to be a multiple allele, multiple function trait, where many genes act together to create a gradient of possible conformity predispositions, and each gene does something else in addition to affecting conformity. The research into the biological bases of conformity has just begun, but the early evidence indicates that there is a strong biological basis (e.g. Biological Psychiatry, Vol. 58, No. 3. (1 August 2005), pp. 245-253).

I don't think your example of conformity of an atheist was a good one. Einstein's blunder was not due to conforming to a societal norm; it was because of his own philosophical belief in a static universe that was actually in contrast to his social peers. Now of course I'm not saying that atheists never conform--all social animals must conform to some degree or else they will be shunned from society. However, I would bet that they conform less (on median) than authoritarian groups, including most theist groups.

>>>I don't think your example of conformity of an atheist was a good one. Einstein's blunder was not due to conforming to a societal norm; it was because of his own philosophical belief in a static universe that was actually in contrast to his social peers...

Indeed, this is my point... that Einstein did not have a gene compelling his conformity in order to conform to his pack but rather he had a psychological crisis of confidence in the midst of such an overpowering consensus to the contrary of his own conclusions.

The data from the Solomon Asch experiment, as applied to Einstein, shows that this was a psychological phenomenon. It says nothing about genetics but everything about the observable and repeatable fact that "everybody knows" consensus can profoundly influence our self confidence to the point where we adjust our opinions.

I think that attributing this to be a genetic feature of the human race because of natural selection of our species or to genetic variation among individuals is to, at best, mix two matters.

>>>>>...I would bet that they [atheists] conform less (on median) than authoritarian groups, including most theist groups.

The evidence I have read seems to suggest that group think is a problem in politics, design groups, board meetings, juries and academic circles with great frequency. Of course I agree that this is less the case in science [a discipline committed to skeptical analysis] than religion [a discipline committed to believing uncritically], but I disagree that this is because religious people got the better gene (the one natural selection prefers).

The evidence I have read seems to suggest that group think is a problem in politics, design groups, board meetings, juries and academic circles with great frequency. Of course I agree that this is less the case in science [a discipline committed to skeptical analysis] than religion [a discipline committed to believing uncritically], but I disagree that this is because religious people got the better gene (the one natural selection prefers).

Like most things, any genetic component for conformity will have an ideal level in any environment; too much will be just as bad as too little, and none at all will always be catostrophic (e.g. psychopaths). The heterogeneity of modern social structures would give "ecological" niches to people with varying degrees of conformity, lowering any selective pressure from the group dynamic, and therefore allowing further variation.

In studying genetics of socialization within social animals, one must always track social changes with the genetic changes, as the society IS the enviornment, and changes in the environment effect changes in selective pressure. When multiple environments are available, multiple frequencies of gene distribution become favored for the different environments. I would bet that this is happening when it comes to genes involved in predisopsition to conformity.

The biological basis of conformity is beyond reproach (although of course environment plays a large role, as always). The genetic means for this biological basis is still unknown, but almost certainly can be inferred to exist from the biological phenomena themselves. Given a varying genetic trait and a group of environments that differentially select for the trait, we would expect to find the trait unequally distributed across the environments, with environments that more strictly demand conformity having a higher frequency of "conformity genes" and enviornments that less strictly demand conformity having a higher frequency of "non-conformity" genes.

>>>...The biological basis of conformity is beyond reproach (although of course environment plays a large role, as always). The genetic means for this biological basis is still unknown, but almost certainly can be inferred to exist from the biological phenomena themselves.

How is that not circular reasoning?

>>>Given a varying genetic trait and a group of environments that differentially select for the trait, we would expect to find the trait unequally distributed across the environments, with environments that more strictly demand conformity having a higher frequency of "conformity genes" and enviornments that less strictly demand conformity having a higher frequency of "non-conformity" genes.

In the Solomon Asch experiment, the participants reported two motivations for confomity:

* self doubt (they figured they must be wrong, since the others were so sure)

* self preservation (they knew that they were right but did not want to unnecessarily expose themselves to emotional discomfort that they perceived would arise)

Looking for - or worse - assuming - the presence of a "self doubt" gene is IMHO ill advised. There are a host of social conditioning factors that would readily account for this.

Self-preservation is common to all. Why the perception of the importance of emotional self-protection varies can also be readily accounted for in social experience.

To my thinking, the "conformist gene theory" should be sliced off with Ocam's Razor.

Getting back to original discussion...

If a "Free Thinker" read a book and felt that it deserved one star, but went to Amazon.com to rate it and found that 500 people had rated it with five stars, and that the raters included Dawkins, Gould, Darwin and Loftus - all praising the book, might they not be tempted to question their evaluation and fudge at least a three star rating? I think so. I think the experiment was not "exposing the conformity gene" or the "Free Thinker gene" or the "religious gene" but was rather exposing the effect that a perceived consensus can have on one's self doubt, self preservation and subsequent actions.

Because neurophysiology (not genetics) showed the biological basis for conformity. Almost every facet of physiology that has been studied has a genetic component, and there is no reason to expect that the biological basis for conformity would be different.

Looking for - or worse - assuming - the presence of a "self doubt" gene is IMHO ill advised. There are a host of social conditioning factors that would readily account for this.

There will not be a gene for self doubt, as I said before. There will be a series of genes that quantitatively affect the propensity for self doubt. Why do you find it hard to believe that genes interact with environment to form sociobiological responses? It has been found for depression, compulsion, and a huge variety of other social interactions--what's so special about conformity that makes you think it is different? I assure you that your opinion would be considered in the minority among neuroscientists.

Self-preservation is common to all. Why the perception of the importance of emotional self-protection varies can also be readily accounted for in social experience.

Can it really? You can explain why people with very similar social experiences can have VASTLY different emotional responses? How about social anxiety disorder, which is known to have a genetic component (check Wikipedia for a lay description)--doesn't the fact that some people have a genetically-linked phobia of social disapproval disprove your hypothesis that reaction to social disapproval is purely a matter of environment?

To my thinking, the "conformist gene theory" should be sliced off with Ocam's Razor.

>>>Can it really? You can explain why people with very similar social experiences can have VASTLY different emotional responses? How about social anxiety disorder, which is known to have a genetic component (check Wikipedia for a lay description)--doesn't the fact that some people have a genetically-linked phobia of social disapproval disprove your hypothesis that reaction to social disapproval is purely a matter of environment?

I am not talking about "disorders" but rather "common responses" that appear in healthy, non-extraordinary individuals. I do not doubt the link between genetics and various pathologies of all sorts. What I find objectionable is the idea that our genes micro-manage our behavior that is more simply attributable to other things.

"To a carpenter, everything looks like a nail."

One person might have been exposed to inspiring stories of people who stood alone and went against the crowd, while the other got poked in the eye every time they asked a simple question.

I don't want to get into a "nature versus nurture" thing here. Suffice it to say that if you consider yourself a "Free Thinkier" then you ought not rest on your "uber-genes" but should always practice vigilance against group think.

>>>>Can it really? You can explain why people with very similar social experiences can have VASTLY different emotional responses? How about social anxiety disorder, which is known to have a genetic component (check Wikipedia for a lay description)--doesn't the fact that some people have a genetically-linked phobia of social disapproval disprove your hypothesis that reaction to social disapproval is purely a matter of environment?

Shy, I decided to look up the article you pointed to. I quote the relevant section:

*************Genetic and family factorsIt has been shown that there is a two to threefold greater risk of having social phobia if a first-degree relative also has the disorder. This could be due to genetics and/or due to children acquiring social fears and avoidance through processes of observational learning or parental psychosocial education. Studies of identical twins brought up (via adoption) in different families have indicated that, if one twin developed social anxiety disorder, then the other was between 30% and 50% more likely than average to also develop the disorder.[27] To some extent this 'heritability' may not be specific - for example, studies have found that if a parent has any kind of anxiety disorder or clinical depression, then a child is somewhat more likely to develop an anxiety disorder or social phobia.[28] Studies suggest that parents of those with social anxiety disorder tend to be more socially isolated themselves (Bruch and Heimberg, 1994; Caster et al, 1999), and shyness in adoptive parents is significantly correlated with shyness in adopted children (Daniels and Plomin, 1985);Adolescents who were rated as having an insecure (anxious-ambivalent) attachment with their mother as infants were twice as likely to develop anxiety disorders by late adolescence,[29] including social phobia.A related line of research has investigated 'behavioural inhibition' in infants – early signs of an inhibited and introspective or fearful nature. Studies have shown that around 10-15% of individuals show this early temperament, which appears to be partly due to genetics. Some continue to show this trait in to adolescence and adulthood, and appear to be more likely to develop social anxiety disorder.[30]**************

Did you note the part where adopted children (ie: dissimmilar DNA) exhibited similar predisposition to the disorder as those with the same parents? The only thing in this study that leans your way is this:

"Studies have shown that around 10-15% of individuals show this early temperament, which appears to be partly due to genetics."

So, I while I am not saying that genetics cannot play a role in specific responses at any time, the article you cite does little to even give evidence that they do! Since this is your evidence, I'm thinking you are a bit admiring of the Emperor's Clothes yourself!

By the way, did you know that 81.47% of statistics are made up on the spot? And if the basis of genetic causation of things like homosexuality and Coke versus Pepsi preference is linked to statistics as slim as that you cite, I'm thinking maybe the next generation is going to have a good laugh at this one's naivetee.

Question: Are you arguing that the background of the college students in the Solomon Asch Conformity Experiments was SO EXACTLY SIMILAR that differences in their childhood experiences, their eyesight, the security of their current social standing and their recent girlfriend troubles COULD NOT POSSIBLY account for the differences in their self confidence and we MUST attribute their different responses to an OBVIOUS BIOLOGICAL/genetic causation - based solely on dubious statistics and a blanket presupposition of genetic influence?

If so, I am tempted to think you are not such a free thinker (no caps) at all, but rather, to a degree you would not readily admit a product of your particular University professors. That is exactly what I am warning against. If this is the case, then thanks for the illustration of conformity of thinking within the atheist community.

But I do hope you will assure me that that is not your position. You are, I trust, merely stating that we should not rule out the part that genetics might play in any given situation. If that is your position, then fine, we're on the same page.

Dan: People like Lee and Shygetz have the mindset that is part of the problem about science.

Science proves the existence of God but the atheistic presuppositions are squashing any results that point to that conclusion.

While I wonder if it's worth responding to that, here's two quick points:

1. Science cannot prove anything. If you don't understand how formulating a proof and doing science are different tasks altogether, you need to pick up a few good books on math and a few on scientific inquiry. I don't want to sound pretentious, but you don't really have a place in a debate about science unless you can make a simple formal distinction like that.

2. As an atheist and a scientist, I have no pressuposition about the existence of deities, I simply don't find a reason to study the world as if one or more exist until I see some objective and verifiable positive evidence. The link for "proof" that you gave was probably the most disappointing thing a theist has posted on this blog in a long while (see first point).

>>>Studies of identical twins brought up (via adoption) in different families have indicated that, if one twin developed social anxiety disorder, then the other was between 30% and 50% more likely than average to also develop the disorder.[27]

I re-read this. This does show some evidence for a genetic link to this pathology, not the other way around. My bad.

>>>To some extent this 'heritability' may not be specific - for example, studies have found that if a parent has any kind of anxiety disorder or clinical depression, then a child is somewhat more likely to develop an anxiety disorder or social phobia.[28]

While interesting, and suggestive, it does not invalidate my point that "watchfulness is the word."

Hi Dan,I have to agree with BH,but I'll execute the principle of charity in a discussion and consider it 'playful'.

But if we say that creation is evidence of god, then the principle behind that must be because it couldn't have arisen on its own. It couldn't have arisen on its own because it is to complex to have happened on its own. So if we take this principle and call it a general principle then we can apply it other things like spinabifida babies or anencephalice babies, (justifiably, there must be the good with the bad). So then lets take it and apply it something else like, (tap, tap, tap, on my chin looking pensively to the sky),.....I know! God! God is the most complex thing in the universe so he must have had a creator! We need to find out who gods god was! I think it was Brahma!

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to investigate the data and alter opinions.

Dan said:People like Lee and Shygetz have the mindset that is part of the problem about science.

Science proves the existence of God but the atheistic presuppositions are squashing any results that point to that conclusion.

Yes, people like me and every other person that actually DOES science are the problem with science. That's why your computers all don't work, your cars don't run, life expectancies are plummeting due to the medicines we make not working, we are failing to explore our solar system, and our knowledge of the universe is going down the toilet.

Science does not and never has proven the existence of God. Every time you try to back this assertion up with "fact", I ruin you. And yet you persist. Fine--show me (again) facts that prove the existence of God, and explain how they prove. And just a warning--if you simply link to a silly laundry list from AiG, I will simply link to talkorigins.org. Put some effort into it if you expect others to do the same.

That is why a movie about such a subject is coming out soon. Ben Stein gets to the bottom of this subject in Expelled!

OK, first of all, why should I believe a thing that Nixon apologist Ben Stein has to say about science? He has as little knowledge of science as you, Dan, and it shows.

Finally, science isn't something that is hashed out on the big screen. The fact is, if intelligent design offered just ONE thing to science, then it would be encouraged and funded. But intelligent design doesn't make a single testable prediction, and has been shown to be flawed at every turn. It was even proven in a court of law to not be science.

""The overwhelming evidence at rial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."--Judge John E. Jones

>>>I appreciate your honesty and willingness to investigate the data and alter opinions.

I woke up this morning and realized that while the discussion moved in many directions, at heart is a nature/nurture supremacy debate. I am not nurture versus nature and you are not nature versus nature. We are both, I believe, nature plus nurture. Our respective concerns have been abundantly expressed, and I think, sans emotion, we can just celebrate that.

Shygetz "I said it before and I'll say it again; if you have such a problem with how science is done, stop using all our stuff."

I love science, what I don't like is the presuppositions that atheists bring when they make hypothesis's. Your point is the most absurd I have heard in quite a long time. If this was a valid point that you made then YOU Shygetz' need to stop using gravity because Sir Newton was a firm believer in a Creator. Stop using gravity, mechanics, laws of motion, laws of cooling, and even calculus. You are now showing how silly your logic is and continues to be. Your anti-theistic viewpoint is such an absurdity. On another point, I hope you will understand that I distinguish between operations and origin science. If scientists would stop their presupposition of no God before they perform experiments or make hypothesis's then this would be a very different world. You viewpoints are poison.

Shygetz "Every time you try to back this assertion up with "fact", I ruin you."

The only one you are ruining is yourself, your not hurting me in the least, stop being so prideful and humble yourself to the Creator. When an Atheist wins an argument, he loses eternity. Always remember that the atheist's problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it.

Shygetz "But intelligent design doesn't make a single testable prediction, and has been shown to be flawed at every turn. It was even proven in a court of law to not be science."

Big surprise that you put your faith in mankind. Just because man says it is so doesn't mean it is. 140 years ago they used to bleed people to cure them (bloodletting) and the Bible said 4000 year ago in Leviticus 17:11 that blood is life. NOT ONE THING has been scientifically disproven in the Bible NOT ONE and you should look at those statistics to form an accurate hypothesis. The Bible is not meant to be a scientific book, scientific model wasn't even around back then but The Bible has stood through the test of time where science doesn't because it changes daily (based on perceived evidence).

You really believe the School system is better off taking God out of it, huh? It all stems from Murray v. Curlett in 1963, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a prominent atheist, removed prayer from public schools. How can you ignore the mathematical statistics of how today's school systems are failing since the removal of prayer, Bible and God. In the early 60's 1 and 40 had an STD today that number is 1 and 3 have an STD. Abortions, drugs, teen pregnancy, subsides, murders even education, just pick a subject and it can be linked that that faithless day in 1963. Blindness is not supposed to be a scientist strong point. Look at the evidence and THEN make a conclusion. So how did atheistic movement help the Soviet Union? Blind science has no use at all in this world. The universe points to a Creator, entire populous and even scientist believe this to be true, but the fringe non-believers that believe more in their god richard dawkins, is delusional.

On a quick note I would just like to point out the people that are improperly and quite abusively (in atheistic blogs especially, including Richard Dawkins) calling the producers of Expelled, liars and deceiving them all by using the umbrella of the name "Crossroads"

In no way does this deceive the public because this, scientist perhaps may appreciate this more, use of the cover company of "Crossroads" is comparable to a control or a placebo effect. That is to say to level the playing field and disguising the true name to get an answer that is without prejudice or biased. Like if you knew you would be talking to Sean Hannity (Hannity & Comlbs) about a certain subject you would have a prejudice to his response to your input and would prepare for that type of question instead of what you truly feel in front of your spouse or a comparable comfortable environment.

I remember back when Walt Disney was buying up all the land in Florida, he used countless pseudo companies or pseudo names to do the land purchases as to not alert the public (and the owners of that land) that it was actually Walt doing the buying. To do so would put everyone on alert and the land value would spike, unfairly I might add, from $100 a square foot to thousands a square foot overnight with this type of information or leverage. So to use a different name is a trivial necessity to make a collection of opinions such as these. I am sure even hookers would want the knowledge that they are actually being propositioned by cops but that is not how we get to the truth of matters is it.

I love science, what I don't like is the presuppositions that atheists bring when they make hypothesis's.

Name one, just ONE, useful and successful scientific theory that invokes God. Just one.

If this was a valid point that you made then YOU Shygetz' need to stop using gravity because Sir Newton was a firm believer in a Creator.

You are absolutely right; if I have a problem with reasoning based on God, I should stop using its advances.

Now, here is Newton's equation for gravity:

F(g) = G(m1*m2)/r^2

Please point out the God term in that equation, and I shall cease using it.

You are now showing how silly your logic is and continues to be.

I assure you that, considering the source, that is highest praise.

If scientists would stop their presupposition of no God before they perform experiments or make hypothesis's then this would be a very different world.

Yes, it would look much like Biblical times, where people blamed the weather on sin and disease on demons. Oh please let's bring back those good ole' days!

When an Atheist wins an argument, he loses eternity. Always remember that the atheist's problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it.

And who, exactly, are you accusing of suppression of evidence? That is a weighty accusation, and considering Federal law regarding government-funded research, a serious legal charge. I hope you have evidence to back it up...oh who am I kidding, we both know you don't. Science hasn't told you what you and your co-religionists want to hear, so we must be making it up. If we are so unreliable, then again, stop using our stuff. But we both know that, when the chips are down and something real is on the line, you trust that we know what we are doing.

Big surprise that you put your faith in mankind. Just because man says it is so doesn't mean it is.

I don't believe man. I look into the evidence. I spent over a decade training to be an expert, and I can look at the output of the ID social movement myself. It is devoid of scientific content, makes no predictions, and is not only useless but anti-useful. I just pointed out that many other people (who know what they are talking about) agree with me.

NOT ONE THING has been scientifically disproven in the Bible NOT ONE and you should look at those statistics to form an accurate hypothesis.

Quit Lying for Jesus; he wouldn't appreciate it. Show me the firmament. Show me the four corners of the earth. Show me bugs with four feet that a Jew cannot eat. The Israelites never wandered through the desert for 40 years. There was no census during 0 C.E. in Palistine. Shall I continue?

You really believe the School system is better off taking God out of it, huh? It all stems from Murray v. Curlett in 1963, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a prominent atheist, removed prayer from public schools.

Quit Lying for Jesus; prayer is still allowed in school, it just must not be directed by school employees.

How can you ignore the mathematical statistics of how today's school systems are failing since the removal of prayer, Bible and God.

Really? Show me evidence.

Abortions, drugs, teen pregnancy, subsides, murders even education, just pick a subject and it can be linked that that faithless day in 1963. Blindness is not supposed to be a scientist strong point. Look at the evidence and THEN make a conclusion.

Two things; first of all, you have yet to show me any evidence to look at. Second, you can't pretend that the one court case was the only think that occurred in the 1960's. Correlation does not equal causation.

The universe points to a Creator, entire populous and even scientist believe this to be true, but the fringe non-believers that believe more in their god richard dawkins, is delusional.

Dawkins is not anyones god. I disagree with him on occasion. And popularity does not equal truth (or was the Earth at one time flat?)

On a quick note I would just like to point out the people that are improperly and quite abusively (in atheistic blogs especially, including Richard Dawkins) calling the producers of Expelled, liars and deceiving them all by using the umbrella of the name "Crossroads"

First of all God is more of an axiom not a theory. Second an explanation without God is irrational.

Shygetz "You are absolutely right; if I have a problem with reasoning based on God, I should stop using its advances."

"Reasoning based on God" what does that mean.

Do you mean:

reasoning based on God's truth.

reasoning based on God’s ethical standards.

reasoning based on God's immortal words.

reasoning based on God's Word.

reasoning based on God's promise.

If we talk about God then we're talking about the in­finite, eternal, self-acting, all-inclu­sive, unchanging, fundamental source or cause of all true being - including all true human knowledge, now that's a reasonable thought.

Shygetz "Now, here is Newton's equation for gravity:

F(g) = G(m1*m2)/r^2

Please point out the God term in that equation, and I shall cease using it."

* We have at our disposal three traditional ways of arguing for the existence of God.

The most popular in the late eighteenth century was the argument from design (also known as the teleological argument, from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purpose). This argument begins with an observation: the world around us is not chaotic but ordered and harmonious. Some examples: whenever the tide comes in it goes out again shortly after; without an ability to inhale air we could not survive, but we have lungs so we can; plants need to be pollinated to survive, and bees do it for them, benefiting in turn from the nectar. According to proponents of the argument from design, the only plausible explanation of all this observable order and harmony involves supposing that an intelligent, benign and all-powerful being – God, in other words – created the universe.Notice that this argument does not depend on accepting the Gospels as true. This is what makes it usable by a deist. Someone who used it enthusiastically was Voltaire.

In the following passage from a book introducing Newton's empirical discoveries to the French world {Elements de la philosophie de Newton, 1738), he suggests that Newton's law of gravitation was proof of God's presence in the world:

"The whole philosophy of Newton leads of necessity to the knowledge of a Supreme Being, who created everything, arranged all things of his own free will … If matter gravitates, as has been proved, it does not do so by virtue of its very nature, as it is extended by reason of its nature. Therefore it received gravitation from God. If the planets rotate through empty space in one direction rather than another, their creator's hand, acting with complete freedom, must have guided their course in that direction." (Quoted in Hampson, 1968, p.79)

A second popular argument for God's existence was the cosmological argument. As with the argument from design, the hypothesis that God exists is adopted as the only plausible explanation of an observable phenomenon. This time the observable phenomenon is not order and harmony but motion in the material universe (or the ‘cosmos’). Something must have made things move in the first place, and God is an obvious suspect. In this guise he is sometimes referred to as the ‘first mover’.

The third traditional argument for the existence of God, known as the ontological argument , was out of fashion at this time, perhaps because it did not rest upon empirical observation. It will not figure in these units, but for the sake of completeness it goes like this: God is, by definition, a perfect being. He is ‘that being than which no more perfect being can be conceived’. So he cannot possess anything but perfect properties. Since the property of not existing would be an imperfection, God cannot possess it. Therefore he must exist. *(openlearn.open.ac.uk)Shygetz "And who, exactly, are you accusing of suppression of evidence? That is a weighty accusation, and considering Federal law regarding government-funded research, a serious legal charge. I hope you have evidence to back it up...oh who am I kidding, we both know you don't."

Show me the four corners of the earth. OK North, South , East, and West. Meaning All parts of the Earth.

Show me bugs with four feet that a Jew cannot eat. We went over this earlier I believe.

The Israelites never wandered through the desert for 40 years. Prove this statement, please.

I have proof in the progressive book called the Bible. Let me show you why you shouldn't read the Bible like Aesop's fables. Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. "You can't believe the Bible it has a bunch of stories" Fantasy stories don't include details like the Bible which should be taken as fact.

The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written as a historical narrative.

There was no census during 0 C.E. in Palistine. I am not familiar with this one, please explain

You really believe the School system is better off taking God out of it, huh? It all stems from Murray v. Curlett in 1963, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a prominent atheist, removed prayer from public schools.

Quit Lying for Jesus; prayer is still allowed in school, it just must not be directed by school employees.

Please point out what exact point that I lied. Did Murray attempt to remove prayer from public schools? That was the catalyst was it not?

You claimed "Every time you try to back this assertion up with "fact", I ruin you."

Please point out any evidence of this statement as I am clearly pointing every one of your concerns with an explanation I do not see you ruining me at all, do you?

You babbled on and on about various fallacious arguments for God, but you never pointed out the God term in the equation. As such, I will assume that such a term is not there, and that therefore the equation works perfectly well without invoking God, so I will continue to use it. You also failed to point out a single working theory or invention that requires God or belief in God to work, so I will assume that you cannot do that, either. Until you can do so, I will feel free to continue using all of technology.

On the other hand, you state that the scientific method, which requires methodological naturalism, quote:

"Science proves the existence of God but the atheistic presuppositions are squashing any results that point to that conclusion."

and:

"I love science, what I don't like is the presuppositions that atheists bring when they make hypothesis's."

Until you can name one useful theory that requires God as a presupposition, then you are talking out of your ass. If methodological naturalism is such a bad idea, stop using all the stuff that resulted from methodological naturalism. If you continue to use it, then you are implicitly stating that you trust methodological naturalism's reliability, and therefore showing where your faith truly lies.

First of all God is more of an axiom not a theory. Second an explanation without God is irrational.

Compare how far we got when we relied upon supernatural thinking, and then compare how far we have gotten once we expelled the supernatural from science. Then, make an argument with a straight face that we should put the supernatural back in because it will improve scientific progress.

"I don't believe man. I look into the evidence" concluded and presented by mankind.

Good thanks for clearing that up for me. huh?

Science requires verifiability and reproducibility. So, I don't have to trust mankind; I can run the experiments myself, look at the evidence myself, and compare my results with other investigators.

How can I verify the Bible (or any revealed knowledge)?

Show me the firmament. Firmament

You linked to Wikipedia, which clearly describes the firmament as an ancient misconception about the heavens:

Biblical references to this cosmology (specifically, the notion of a solid Firmament with Heaven above it) include the creation of the Firmament in Genesis 1:6; God opening windows in the Firmament in Genesis 7:11 to let water rain down, and closing them again in Genesis 8:2; the construction of a tall tower to reach Heaven in Genesis 11:4; celestial warehouses for snow and hail in Job 38:22, the sky as a strong crystalline material in Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22; the sky as a tent in Isaiah 40:22; stars as small objects attached to the Firmament (which can fall off) in Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 8:10, Revelation 9:1 and Revelation 12:4 (it is sometimes claimed that these "falling stars" are meteors, but the swipe of a dragon's tail dislodges "one-third of all the stars in the sky" in Revelation 12:4).

The heavens are "rolled back like a scroll" in Revelation 6:14: however, as stars are apparently still being knocked off the Firmament in subsequent verses, it's unclear which layer is being removed at this point.

So, show me the firmament. Did you really mean to make my point for me so efficiently?

OK North, South , East, and West. Meaning All parts of the Earth.

Really? Because the Bible says four corners (or extremities, if you prefer that translation). Show me the four extremities of the earth. None of the cardinal directions are extremities, they are directions.

We went over this earlier I believe.

Yes, and you came up with the ludicrous claim that the Bible states that Jews may eat locusts, but locusts shall be an abomination unto them in the same verse. Nice try, but no dice (unless you admit that God is retarded).

Jesus' parents were traveling to Bethlehem due to a census. The nearest census took place in 6 C.E. However, Herod, who supposedly slaughtered infants wholesale around Jesus' birth (and which no non-Christian recorded)died in 4 B.C.E.

Please point out what exact point that I lied. Did Murray attempt to remove prayer from public schools? That was the catalyst was it not?

Due to your terrible memory and apparent reading difficulties, I will quote Dan Marvin to Dan Marvin:

You really believe the School system is better off taking God out of it, huh? It all stems from Murray v. Curlett in 1963, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a prominent atheist, removed prayer from public schools.

Not *tried* to remove prayer, but "removed prayer from public schools." This is demonstrably false, as ANYONE who went to school, had a kid go to school, or even drove by a school on the right day can attest. You either know that and said otherwise, or you claimed to have knowledge that you did not (and should have), either one of which is a lie.

And Murray did NOT attempt to remove prayer from school; she attempted to remove compulsary Bible readings from school (which you also would know if you bothered to look).

I am glad you asked go to Suppression, Censorship and Dogmatism in Science There is plenty out there to read or you can just go see the movie Expelled! to expose a great deal more.

Please point out any evidence of this statement as I am clearly pointing every one of your concerns with an explanation I do not see you ruining me at all, do you?

Oh, I don't expect you to see it. You have proven to be invulnerable to both evidence and logic, so you probably think you are holding your end of the argument up just fine. However, I have noted that you have always argued without support from anyone, whereas I have occasionally garnered thanks for my (up until now) patient exposure of your errors, lies, and fallacies. Does this tell you anything? Given your history, I bet it does--it tells you that true Christians are persecuted in this world, and God loves you even more for your willingness to lie on his behalf.

This comment will serve as notice that I am through attempting to educate Dan Marvin. If anyone finds his arguments even slightly convincing, let me know and I will spend time carefully debinking them, as I do not want any sincere person to fall for his baseless propaganda without at least having the opportunity to see the facts and evidence.

Unless I hear from someone that they need to see the evidence that the earth is greater than 6000 years old, that dinosaurs didn't live with people, that there was no global flood that wiped out all of humanity except for 8 people and a bunch of animals on a boat, and that animals weren't created in their present form, I will no longer waste my time on him. From now on, unless I hear that my input is needed, I will answer Dan's lies thusly:

"In 1960, Murray filed a lawsuit (Murray v. Curlett) against the Baltimore School District in which she asserted that it was unconstitutional for her son William to be required to participate in Bible readings at Baltimore public schools. In this litigation, she claimed that her son's refusal to partake in the Bible readings had resulted in violence being directed against him by classmates, and that administrators overlooked it (after his conversion to Christianity, William publicly stated that these were fraudulent assertions; see below). In 1963, this suit (amalgamated with the similar Abington School District v. Schempp) reached the United States Supreme Court, which voted 8-1 in her favor, effectively banning coercive public prayer and Bible-reading at public schools in the United States. Madalyn Murray became so controversial that, in 1964, Life magazine referred to her as "the most hated woman in America." Before Life, Robert Anton Wilson had written an article with the same title for Fact Magazine."

So if your argument is that I left out Bible study along with prayer then your just helping my case. If you feel that she did not do this then again, your delusional. You owe me an apology, now man up.

I mean you no harm but I want you to understand how deceived that you truly are in your thoughts and life and maybe you need to take a look at things with a logical mind. I understand it may be frustrating to be wrong, but you are. I have said it before perfect love is a constant confronter and I will never give up on you Shygetz, I care and love you too much for that. I don't want to see you in your last days here on earth as an enemy of God, i can't stand the thought of your fate.

Run, run, run away from the truth if you must. You need the truth and that is why for some things that I will answer Shygetz's lies thusly:

Note the word "coercive", which you intentionally left out of your post when you said that she "removed prayer from public school", knowing full well that prayer is still present in public school and just can no longer be coerced. You lied, you know it, and it's here in black and white for anyone else to see. But rather than apologize, you attempt to weasel out of your lie. I will not judge all Christians by your example, but you are certainly typical of Young Earth Creationist evangelizers; they will lie, deceive, misquote, quote mine, falsify evidence, slander, libel, and harass in order to win converts.

It seems that no one here is willing to listen to your YEC lies, Dan. But if they ever do, I'll still be here. You bastards won't catch me sleeping again.

You YEC evangelists disgust me, which is why I spend so much of my time trying to stop the spread of your poison. You want to indoctrinate a generation of children to the point where they will be unable to function as scientists, then release them to work in a world increasingly dependent on science. You harm these children you indoctrinate with lies and a willingness to lie, and you leave them sorely unprepared for life.

Fortunately, most of the faith community have caught on to your crowd's lies and are willing to repudiate them (thank you gordonblood and other more reasonable theists like you). When atheist and theist intellectuals debate, they dismiss your crowd out of hand lest they be accused of erecting strawmen. Theists are often heard to publically say that "no reasonable Christian" believes Genesis is literal, as the stories are quite silly to a species that has gone to the moon and back. You have been kicked out of the public schools, you have lost in the scientific journals, you have lost in court, your people are getting voted off of school boards, you are laughed out of universities and learned societies, now even your leaders are being imprisoned on felony offenses. But as long as even one of you remains active in spreading your poison, I will be ready to offer the truth to those who are willing to hear it, complete with evidence that they can verify themselves.

As a group, classes and schools used to pray to God i.e. Jesus (not to satan or anyone else) If you are saying I could of been more accurate by saying "removed coercive prayer of Jesus from public school" then yes I agree with you on that one point. Just lets make it clear in todays time because of that ruling the no longer do Bible study and they are allowed to pray to spaghetti monsters, satan, or muslims god, or anything else in school and that is where the detriment of Madalyn Murry O'hair's legacy is. She helped the entire public school system and children since 1963 break the Second Commandment. Am I perfectly clear now?

Shygetz- thanks again for taking the time to fisk YEC silliness. It must seem like punching a tar baby sometimes.

Dan- not only is the decline of prayer in public school obviously the cause of drug addiction, homosexuality, and women getting uppity, but global warming is caused by the worldwide decline in pirates. Check it out- the scientific proof liberals are trying to suppress.

I would love to spend the time necessary to take on Dan's errors, but as I said elsewhere, the visit of an out-of-town relative will limit my time here until Wednesday, at the earliest, and I want to get my 'fourth bullet' up. However, i couldn't resist throwing a quote back at Dan.

Dan, what 'godless atheistis scientist' recently wrote the following:

"He writes that both chimp and human DNA manifest similar errors in pseudogenes. He then observes:

“If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.”

The writer -- and apparently this is something he has held for years -- is

You put your faith in mankind and I don't. Nothing new here, what's your point, Jim?

Remember there are men out there that say they believe satan is the greatest. There are men out there that say they believe god is a tree or a rock. There are men out there that say the believe in God and become a priest and proceed to rape little boys. Are they all correct to you? What matters is the truth and God has the power to preserve His word for eternity, as he has, and He gave us a New Covenant and we are to be in Christ's rest now. It doesn't matter what some dude thinks what matters is the truth.

The natural laws of information show in a purely scientific way that:1. no material entity can create an immaterial entity2. information is a non-material entity3. information is the non-material basis for all biological systems4. there is no information without code5. every code is the result of a free will agreement6. there is never new information without a sender which is intelligent and with a clear will7. every information can be followed up to the intelligent source8. the meaning of a set of symbol is a spiritual process which needs intelligent9. from statistical processes one cannot generate information…Evolutionism is a malsane virus which blocks the Scientists in properly interpret their observations in a clear way.Unfortunately, almost all the scientists which deal with evolutionism work in cultural “Silos” and they do not approach the issue from a information theoretical basis.If they would do so, they would realize that evolutionism is fundamentally biased. Source

The natural laws of information show in a purely scientific way that:1. no material entity can create an immaterial entity2. information is a non-material entity3. information is the non-material basis for all biological systems4. there is no information without code5. every code is the result of a free will agreement6. there is never new information without a sender which is intelligent and with a clear will7. every information can be followed up to the intelligent source8. the meaning of a set of symbol is a spiritual process which needs intelligent9. from statistical processes one cannot generate information

Lie, lie, lie. This is all purely lies, and you did not cite one peer-reviewed article to back this up. I would say they are beneath your dignity, but that would be flying in the face of evidence. I, on the other hand, can cite several that refute it--e.g. Shannon, C.E. (1948), "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379–423 & 623–656, July & October, 1948. I sourced a peer-reviewed article on information theory that discusses how statistical processes generate information, and you sourced...an anonymous comment on a propaganda website for an ID propaganda film! My, isn't that illustrative!

Evolutionism is a malsane virus which blocks the Scientists in properly interpret their observations in a clear way.

And yet we use it successfully every day to make your medicines and vaccines and herbicides and pesticides and antifungals and crops and livestock. Have you reverted to faith healing, or do you partake of the fruit from the poisoned tree?

And is "malsane" even a word? I can't find it in the dictionary...

Unfortunately, almost all the scientists which deal with evolutionism work in cultural “Silos” and they do not approach the issue from a information theoretical basis.

But shygetz, you must admit that it sounds cool. I suspect that it's a neologism, from mal-, meaning bad, and -sane, meaning health or sanity. Thus a "malsane virus" is a "mad, bad, virus". What an appropriate metaphor for evolution! I love it! I'm going to use it all the time now!

And what's not to love about the proof of God by information theory! Of course you're right- Shannon must be spinning in his grave. But it sounds so- truthy. So- sciency. And that's the important thing, isn't it?

Shygetz, isn't it a bit ignorant to require a concrete source to provide oneself with information? I mean, I never had to read any book to figure out that i have the ability to think and reason. So, isn't it a bit strange that you believe that the information that was provided is false, only because it disagrees with information that you have read and not through your own individual thought process? I find that slightly "illustrative," don't you?